Hi I know this is 5 years ago but wanted to mention that the snowmobile routes you added are not quite right and are not useful as-is. These snowmobile routes that appear to share roads used by cars and possibly pedestrian paths need to be added as roads or pedestrian paths, and then marked as snowmobile usable or added as a snowmobile route relation. Now I'm not entirely sure which of the ways you drew were existing road/hiking-pedestrian paths or dedicated to snowmobiles so I'd prefer not to touch them, but they need work as it is now.

Yeah this looks good, it's about as much as can be done if you don't have enough data to draw the complete circle. However one comment: the stop signs on california st are still there, are they yield or are they still stop?

Ah, so yes, if it's like that, it's a tiny but true "roundabout" - not a "mini-roundabout" since it has something that prohibits driving over the center.

So...to answer your question about automatic drawing... Nope, nothing is automatically drawn, heh. So to properly do this you could draw a little circle for the roundabout (you can use the "circle" tool to make a really rough circle, i.e. a triangle or a square even, and turn it into a circle) and draw the roads to it. Or I think in this case you can just leave it as a crossing intersection and tag the cross intersection with junction=roundabout and direction=counterclockwise much like that second example photo in the wiki with the black corrugated pillar with arrows on it. Hope this is clear enough?

Oooh, that also annoys me that city planners do something like that. Yeah technically that should also be marked as a "roundabout" though it's too small to actually take advantage of the key aspect of the structure: you have right of way when you're in in the structure and all people entering it must yield. I think the other thing is that if you needed to take a left turn in the new intersection, do you turn right?

If these two aspects are not met then it probably shouldn't be tagged as a roundabout especially if the latter isn't met and perhaps traffic calming island is a better choice. Are there photographs of the intersection anywhere?

Hello, welcome to OSM! Just wanted to let you know that someone spotted an accidental mistake you did by dragging a node making a road real crooked. note/4486424 - I ended up fixing them so it should look okay now. Just a reminder to carefully check your clicks and drags before uploading your changes!

I just spotted another error: the Kum & Go at way/688751094 - This is a "roof" building at layer 1, and if you merge the gas station to the roof, the gas station is at layer 1...which is nonsensical as it's at layer 0(or no layer tag). So this is another example not to merge the two. I changed it back while changing it to a Maverik as the station has rebranded -- as witnessed in a drive by. Actually it's been a Maverik for a few months, I don't know why I haven't noted and changed it...

Do NOT delete roads that can be seen on satellite imagery. This is a warning.

I don't agree with occupant vs building. There are special cases where the building may be historic and actually has a name -- but the shop is different than the historic name of the building -- and this would make it very difficult to map both without my method of building not merged with shop.

Just a comment about "both" -- meaning both a node and an area -- the intent was having the area marked as a shop and have the poi marked as a shop -- this is double tagging and is very frowned upon. However if the building is a building and the shop is a node, this is no longer "both" and it also opens the possibility for multiple shops in the building.

Yes the apartment complex + shops at level 1 is actually very common and becoming more common in high pop areas. I tag the building as apartments and put however many POI shops on the building. This should be fine too.

And of course, sharing is the third category...but that's kind of a given...

IMHO merging POIs with their buildings should not be done if you're not sure they also own the building. If they're renting or don't know I'd leave it as POI.

This doesn't do anything with restrictions. I'd either revert as there's no need for this, else you would have to break up the road to dual carriageway (and remove the turn restrictions as they would be implicit with the split.)

Fixes needed.

Beat me to it, thanks for understanding!

Oh I see now. Yes Tiger has a numerical ordinal versus spelled out. Alas we try to match what's on the street so we should keep "Ninth" as that's what the street signs say in Streetside photos.

Tiger has been known to be wrong (though in this case it's symbolically correct.)

I'm going to change it back.

Hi, is there a reason why you changed "Nineth" to "9th" without changing it for the whole length of the street? Was there a sign on the street indicating as such? note/4461310 alerted this as a possible mistake.

... and hit submit before finishing the changeset comment. but anyway also changed a few service roads to driveways for indivduals, marked some roads as unpaved where visible in sat imagery, and straightened a few roads

I noticed you added protected bike lanes. However the main street has bike tagging - since you added the bike lanes, the street tagging now needs to have bicycle access removed. Is this what you want?

Access=no is clearly incorrect as well, these paths you are editing are indeed used for walking from hole to hole as well as for golf carts.

You're making the map solely for your use instead of making the map available for everyone's use and this is problematic.

Yes private driveways should be marked. Anything seen in life or satellite imagery gets drawn.

Agree with above, they should not be deleted, thank you woodpeck for reverting. I am curious as to what your use model that would require these paths be omitted? Perhaps it's best to change your software to simply avoid walking paths that cross over golf courses much like crossing over military bases, private industries, etc. which are likewise marked on the map? Please do let us know and maybe we can think of a solution that would help you.

Was the JoDean's building demolished?

For shops that aren't actively open and selling, they shouldn't be added or at least a construction:amenity should be used. Also if the name of a shop is unknown, it's better to leave them blank. These are both suggestions as they make searching easier.